EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

one more warm up just for the fun of it

Fish that Ruined Evolutionists’
Dreams:Coeoelecanth​

Evolutionists used to depict the Coelecanth, a fish
known only from fossils dating back 400 million years,
as very powerful evidence of a transitional form between
fish and amphibians. Since it was assumed that
this species had become extinct 70 million years ago,
evolutionists engaged in all kinds of speculation re-​

garding the fossils. On 22 December 1938, however, a
living Coelecanth was caught in the deep waters of the
Indian Ocean. More than 200 other living specimens
have been caught in the years that followed.
All the speculation regarding these fish had been unfounded.
Contrary to what evolutionists claimed, the
Coelecanth was not a vertebrate with half-fish, half-amphibian
characteristics preparing to emerge onto dry
land. It was in fact a bottom-dwelling fish that almost never
rose above a depth of 180 meters (590 feet). Moreover,
there were no anatomical differences between the living
Coelecanth and the 400-million-year-old fossil specimens.​

This creature had never “evolved” at all.

This is stupid. ToE does not predict there will be no Coelacanths. On the contrary, it predicts there will be families like this.

Any time a creationist tries to tell you that “living fossils” disprove evolution, you know that he or she a) doesn’t understand the theory of evolution at all, and b) hasn’t honestly looked at the evidence they think they are presenting. They might as well get the word “Idiot” tattooed into their forehead; as a signifier of their intellectual prowess, it would be just as accurate. They all make several gross errors. "Unchanging forms” refute evolution. Not quite true. A species that exhibited no variation at all, and that showed no change over time, not even neutral molecular differences, would be a major puzzler for biology. No such thing has ever been observed. On the other hand, gross structural stasis over a long period of time is no problem for evolution. One thing even many biology students have some difficulty grasping is that selection is a conservative force; it tends to limit variation to the narrower domain of the viable and the competitive.
Coelacanths are unchanging forms that show no evidence of evolution. Read the quotes above: the creationists can’t even get their stories straight. They repeatedly claim that the coelacanth is “stable” and “unchanging”, but then they turn around and point out huge differences between what we know of coelacanths in the fossil record and modern forms: they live in different environments with remarkably different physiology. Which is it? Are they unchanging or are they radically changed?
The answer is that modern coelacanths are specialized remnants of a once diverse and widespread group. They have changed extensively over hundreds of millions of years, as would be expected, and this once widely successful and branched family has been pruned back to just a few twigs lurking in relatively inaccessible locations. Here, for instance, are a few fossil examples of ancient coelacanth diversity (Clack, 2002):

A. Macropomoides orientalis, from the late Cretaceous.
B. Rhabdoderma elegans, late Carboniferous.
C. Allenypterus montanus, early Carboniferous.
"Coelacanth" is a term that refers to an entire order of fish, the Coelacanthiformes. The modern coelacanths are of the genus Latimeria, and none of the ancient fish belong to that genus—it ought to be fairly obvious that Latimeria is clearly distinct from any of the fossil forms if it was assigned to a unique genus. The brilliant creationists who point to Latimeria and claim that it is an example of an unchanging form might want to reconsider; would they also point to a random member of the primate order, say a howler monkey, and announce that it is obvious that all primates for all of their history have been identical?
Scientists haven’t been disappointed by the coelacanth at all. It’s wonderful to have at least a few representatives of a family once thought to be extinct that are still around. Personally, one thing I’d like to know more about is that fascinating limb duplication they exhibit. They have a second dorsal and anal fin that each have a partial girdle structure—there’s an interesting story in molecular development in there, I’m sure.

pz myers.

Until you find out what ToE says, you will be powerless to refute it.

 

[Autodidact]

one more, what the heck, i can't resist

Birds’ Wings Cannot Be the Work of Chance​

Evolutionists maintain that birds evolved from reptiles—
though this is impossible, and a bird’s wing
alone is sufficient to prove this. In order for evolution
of the kind claimed to have taken place, a reptile’s
forearms would have to have changed into functional
wings as the result of mutations taking place
in its genes—and quickly! And this is not feasible.
First of all, this transitional life form
would be unable to fly with only half-developed
wings. It would also be deprived
of its forearms. That would mean it was
essentially deformed and therefore—
according to the theory of evolution—
would be eliminated.
In order for any bird to fly, its wings
​

had to be fully formed in every detail. The wings
should be soundly attached to the chest cavity. The
bird would need to have a light skeletal structure allowing
it to take off, maintain its balance in the air and
move in all directions. Its wing and tail feathers would
have to be light, flexible and in aerodynamic proportion
to one another. In short, everything would have to
operate with a flawless coordination in order to make
flight possible. How could this inerrant structure in
birds’ bodies have resulted from a succession of random​

mutations? That question has no answer.

What a moron. Why does he think he can refute a theory without knowing what it says? I guess the only weapon he has is to distort it, because if he described the actual theory, he couldn't refute it. This drivel is so stupid it's annoying to even respond.

 

[Gharib]

ok time for me to go for a while. i shall see you all later with more questions/articles. good day to you all.

 

[Gharib]

What a moron. Why does he think he can refute a theory without knowing what it says? I guess the only weapon he has is to distort it, because if he described the actual theory, he couldn't refute it. This drivel is so stupid it's annoying to even respond.

you never answered the question.

 

[richardlowellt]

1. The assumption made by the claim is false. Structures and organs function quite well when they are not fully developed. Six-year-olds may not have the strength and agility of adults, but their arms, legs, and so forth function well enough to do a great deal.
2. "Fully developed" is not even well defined. Human eyes do not have the acuity of hawks, the dark sight ability of owls, the color discrimination of some fish, or the bee's ability to see in ultraviolet. With so much more potential possible for the human eye, how can one claim that our own eyes are fully developed?

Half a wing can have any of several uses:

• In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).
• In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Airfoils for gliding appear in several different forms in many different animals, including
  • skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
  • flattened body of the flying snake (Chrysopelea)
  • large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs (Rhacophorus and Polypedates)
  • fins on flying fish (Exocoetidae) and flying squid (Onychoteuthis)
  • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards (e.g., Draco)
  • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic
  • lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an Upper Permian flying reptile (Frey et al. 1997)
  • even an ant (Cephalotes atratus), when it falls, uses its hind legs to direct its aerial descent back to its home tree's trunk (Yanoviak et al. 2005).
• In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindlimb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)
• In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
• In some flightless birds, wings are used for startling potential predators.
• Black herons use their wings to shade the water in which they fish.
• Some owls use their wings to hold their prey against the ground.
• Nighthawks, woodcocks, riflebirds, and several species of manakins make noises with their wings as part of sexual displays.
• Partial wings may have other useful functions that nobody has thought of yet.

Source

Eselam, retreat boy, your taking a real beating. This is great stuff, I even learned something, frubals to you.

 

[Autodidact]

you never answered the question.

Think hard; see if you can figure it out.

 

[McBell]

I do not know which is worse, the beating that eselam is taking or the fact that he has no idea that he is taking such a beating......

 

[McBell]

Think hard; see if you can figure it out.

I honestly believe that you give him far to much credit.

 

[camanintx]

descent doesn't do much, it's not like a cow will give birth to a horse, it will only give birth to a cow.

Unless the cow's decedent is so different from the cow that we decide to call it something different.

 

[ragordon168]

one more, what the heck, i can't resist

Birds’ Wings Cannot Be the Work of Chance
Evolutionists maintain that birds evolved from reptiles—
though this is impossible, and a bird’s wing
alone is sufficient to prove this. In order for evolution
of the kind claimed to have taken place, a reptile’s
forearms would have to have changed into functional
wings as the result of mutations taking place
in its genes—and quickly! And this is not feasible.
First of all, this transitional life form
would be unable to fly with only half-developed
wings. It would also be deprived
of its forearms. That would mean it was
essentially deformed and therefore—
according to the theory of evolution—
would be eliminated.
In order for any bird to fly, its wings
had to be fully formed in every detail. The wings
should be soundly attached to the chest cavity. The
bird would need to have a light skeletal structure allowing
it to take off, maintain its balance in the air and
move in all directions. Its wing and tail feathers would
have to be light, flexible and in aerodynamic proportion
to one another. In short, everything would have to
operate with a flawless coordination in order to make
flight possible. How could this inerrant structure in
birds’ bodies have resulted from a succession of random​

mutations? That question has no answer.

1. loss of forearms - have you ever seen a t-rex? huge head and dumpy little arms which were pretty much useless. (until mating season as it is theorised that the arms were used for foreplay.)

2. not deformed, different. like t-rex some dinosaurs didnt use their arms, relying more on their neck and leg muscles to survive so the arms didnt play a major part and could change without resulting in extinction of the species.


3. bird structure - im sure there were thousands/millions of ****-poor variations on each of these structures and because of natural selection were weeded out.

 

[McBell]

. (until mating season as it is theorised that the arms were used for foreplay.)

Egads!

The mental images...
Must scratch out eyes....

 

[Tristesse]

one more warm up

Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City,
Neither Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop
Living Things
Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA
in which all the information concerning the human
body’s characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur
due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals.
Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic
changes can cause living things to evolve. The fact is,
though, that mutations are always harmful to living

​

things, do not develop them, and can never endow
them with any new functional features (such as wings
or lungs, for instance). Mutations either kill or deform
the afflicted organism. To claim that mutations improve
a species and endow it with new advantages is
like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more
advanced and modern, or that striking a computer
with a hammer will result in a more advanced model.
Indeed, no mutation has ever been observed to increase—​

much less improve—genetic information.

up to now i have kind of been playing with you guys, but it is time for evolution to come to an end, just like all things eventually do.

You are forgetting one valuable aspect, the city was a man made structure. The earth quake is a natural disaster, while we may not view it valuable, it may have valuable aspects for the earth.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

one more warm up

Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City,
Neither Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop
Living Things
Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA
in
.
.....snip....​

.
up to now i have kind of been playing with you guys, but it is time for evolution to come to an end, just like all things eventually do.

The mindless drivel that you quoted is irrelevant.
What has me more disturbed is your finishing comment (which I bolded and turned green).
Question: "It is time for evolution to come to an end" :areyoucra Ummmmm....How?

How exactly do you intend on stopping a natural phenomenon? Can we stop gravity and the motion of neutrinos while we're at it? :sarcastic
Seriously.

 

[Pure-Truth]

one more warm up just for the fun of it

Fish that Ruined Evolutionists’
Dreams:Coelacanth
Evolutionists used to depict the Coelacanth, a fish
known only from fossils dating back 400 million years,
as very powerful evidence of a transitional form between
fish and amphibians. Since it was assumed that
this species had become extinct 70 million years ago,
evolutionists engaged in all kinds of speculation regarding the fossils. On 22 December 1938, however, a
living Coelacanth was caught in the deep waters of the
Indian Ocean. More than 200 other living specimens
have been caught in the years that followed.
All the speculation regarding these fish had been unfounded.
Contrary to what evolutionists claimed, the
Coelacanth was not a vertebrate with half-fish, half-amphibian
characteristics preparing to emerge onto dry
land. It was in fact a bottom-dwelling fish that almost never
rose above a depth of 180 meters (590 feet). Moreover,
there were no anatomical differences between the living
Coelacanth and the 400-million-year-old fossil specimens.​

This creature had never “evolved” at all.

Approximate age of Bibles accounts are around 2000 years of history.

NOW

The above inferences are dated back to how many years?
Which inferences do you base your knowledge on? Biblical or factual ones?

Here's something to consider..

Lets say the bible was instigated and written by a god, and lets say this god is suppose to know everything, can you give me an explanation as to why man as we know man, has a shorter history than creatures that were not mentioned in the bible, and why were such creatures omitted and or never mentioned? sure doesn't sound like an all knowing god instigated the bible, and whats more these creatures then must have been alive before man was around, and in fact the earth and the Sun, if we are to go by the bibles time line, one would think if someone writing a book with all that knowledge would have the time lines in order dont you?..

Here's another problem with the bible, where it insists man was created unto the image of gawd, only problem is which race really has gawds image down pat? Aboriginals?, Africans? or Asians? oh and or Europeans?

I concede each race has evolved very little from the other race, but never the less given enough time the small thus far changes will lead to differences that would be astoundingly massive with differing environmental factors involved and had no interbreeding of the races been possible.

I would suggest one considers what astronauts have to contend with, should they have spent some considerable time in a micro-gravitational environment, pointing out just how ones environment is critical in defining a species possible definition..

Cheers,

Pete.. What The F:run:rk!

 

[McBell]

The mindless drivel that you quoted is irrelevant.
What has me more disturbed is your finishing comment (which I bolded and turned green).
Question: "It is time for evolution to come to an end" :areyoucra Ummmmm....How?

How exactly do you intend on stopping a natural phenomenon? Can we stop gravity and the motion of neutrinos while we're at it? :sarcastic
Seriously.

well, see, the problem is that what he calls evolution and what evolution actually is are two completely different things.

However, I have to completely agree with him, this bull **** he calls evolution really does need to come to an end.

However, I seriously doubt that he will let go of his strawmen.

 

[Autodidact]

Apparently Magic Evidence Spray works against Muslim as well as Christian creationists.

 

[Ganymede]

Factoid:

If you don't believe in Humans having a "soul", and not just the powers of reason, you cannot effectively argue with a creationist/intelligent designist about evolution.

Since, to be sure you will ask - I believe in both. (The human soul, and evolution).

 

[Autodidact]

Factoid:

If you don't believe in Humans having a "soul", and not just the powers of reason, you cannot effectively argue with a creationist/intelligent designist about evolution.

Since, to be sure you will ask - I believe in both. (The human soul, and evolution).

And why is that, pray tell?

 

[Jose Fly]

So Eselam, if you were given one example of a beneficial mutation, would you admit that your source is wrong?

 

[imaginaryme]

All this has been about Intelligent Design? Say it ain't so!

I've heard that "Darwin's Black Box" was like popping the hood on an automobile and seeing this "Do Not Touch" sign. Why not complete the analogy? I used to do auto mechanics. A lot of little guys used to make a living repairing cars. Then the big repair shops got together with the manufacturers and instigated the use of vast and complicated diagnosis machines. Just plug your sick car into the machine, and the autodoc says, "take two quarts and call me in the morning." Thing is, you must be a big outfit to afford such a machine. So, today's "black box" under the hood is a manufactured complexity inspired by greed and the desire to monopolize. This isn't "intelligence" behind the "design," this is consumerist capitalism; certainly not god.

Or, one could just do the research and find out ID is straight crap, but that doesn't seem to be working.